Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McGee v. Waters, 95-6722 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-6722 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 09, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6722 GUYN RALPH MCGEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY WATERS, Sheriff; DOCTOR PENALOSA; J. SMITH, Classification; PORTSMOUTH CITY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-19-3) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-6722 GUYN RALPH MCGEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY WATERS, Sheriff; DOCTOR PENALOSA; J. SMITH, Classification; PORTSMOUTH CITY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-19-3) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guyn Ralph McGee, Appellant Pro Se. John Dinshaw McIntyre, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia; Carolyn Porter Oast, Teresa Rejent Warner, John Anders Heilig, Robert Moreland, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's* order denying re- lief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion granting partial summary judgment and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the court's final judgment order. McGee v. Waters, No. CA-94-19-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to trial by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer